From my understanding in the NATO "Thing", is they (the Govt in Holyrood) only agreed the possibility of remaining in NATO if NATO agree to nuclear free status for Scotland. Yes, this issue is very quickly turning into the Judean's Popular Front Fiasco.

Peter Curran can speak for himself but my interpretation of his writings on this issue is that his complaint is not confined to whether NATO agrees to a nuclear (weapons) free Scotland. If I have read him right, he predicts an increased timescale for removal, if at all. He is being honest enough with himself to acknowledge that political footballs are punted into long grass for a reason - many never again see the light of day.

Sean disnae like minimum alcohol pricing. I think hereditary monarchism is repugnant and I detest almost everything MacAskill has done since taking office.

Nevertheless, I would argue that the broader issues are the dearth of individual thought, open debate and democracy within the SNP and wider independence movement. I am a nationalist and I will not hesitate to answer yes to independence if the question ever gets asked. But I'll be fucked if I vote SNP again.

What am I missing here? The no to NATO was voted on by SNP members some time ago. Is it ok to vote yes for something you believe in but when the same party proposes a debate and a vote, just like the last one, that is suddenly not oK because they may change their vote? Did people join a movement or a single issue protest group?

Are all previous conference votes now to be set in stone, and never to be changed, because some people in the party may not like it and resign as a consequence?

The other bit that puzzles me is just where are the anti nuclear lobby going to go? What party are they going to vote for? What other party has any chance of ridding Scotland of nuclear weapons this side of forever?

I am no lover of NATO, but I am an even bigger hater of nuclear weapons. I would never cut of my NATO nose to spite my nuclear face.

A long time ago I said to you "that with devaluation we may be allowed to ban air rifles with independence we can ban Trident" Nothings changed since I sent that.

No its not the SNP Blair moment. Clause 4 and CND were threads that ran right through Labour. The only comparison would be if the SNP spurned independence, and that will never happen.

There is a saying "its hard to remember your objective was to drain the swamp when you are up to your arse in alligators"

It will be hard to reconcile, if in future years we still have Trident, are surrounded by new nuclear power stations, and are still short changed as a nation, because we lost sight of the only prize worth having, independence, because we spent time throwing our toys out of the pram on something that we could only achieve if we achieved the first and only objective.

Serves you right! Taking it easy on the Cochers column is no way to get fit for the fight in 2014. 8)

I am in the SNP and am not an Essex girl. I find a non-Trident in NATO stance as plausible as being a little bit pregnant.

The present policy is logical and defensible as well as giving the rUK and NATO problems with the hole that it punches in their defence of the polar and Greenland approaches, i.e. a pink chip for Scotland in the seperation negotiations. I will be voting against any change.

The ability and willingness to discuss contentious issues are strengths, whereas repressing differences of opinion, even for fear of how the opposition might exploit them, is a weakness. Surely it is preferable to honestly admit that we do not agree on Y and Z but we still agree on X? The independence movement is a broad church. Most Scottish political blogs would have you believe that the entire Scottish population is crying out for higher taxes and greater government intervention in every aspect of their lives. I read that stuff and I know that's nothing like the Scotland I want. But I agree on independence.

I have to agree with the point that, in the interests of democracy, a debate and vote should be had if there is demand. But how about some honesty and integrity. Who is driving it and why? Have those now proclaiming the merits of democracy been similarly inclined on other issues? Will the leadership just reverse any decision it doesn't like when nobody's looking, again?

anyways you and all the other pinko bleeding heart anti nuclear tree hugging liberals are meant to rend yer clothes and wail yer heads off.

Alex standing on the podium all leaderly like will reap the benefits for standing up to the malcontents in his own party. Thats whats happened to every other party leader who done the same on issues party extremists(thats you) are against but the general non party public are for.

Alex wants needs a public rammy with the CND brigade to show his steely determination to take the right decision.

As has already been pointed out to Peter Curran the SNP is a democratic political party and if the leadership want a debate and a vote what's the problem? Whatever choice the SNP make it will not mean an independent Scotland follows that policy. Anyone who believes that an SNP government having won an independence referendum will then have an unquestioned mandate to then negotiate whatever exit it desires from the UK is in loony tunes land. And even if that were true which other potential governing party wants to get rid of nuclear weapons much less exit NATO? So those who want a nuclear free or NATO free Scotland better join the SNP participate in the debate/vote and then vote Yes. Meantime stop giving ammunition to Unionist ar***oles like Cockers ammunition. And that btw is not suppressing debate!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes Conan but only up to a point. No one seems to want to accept that the SNP does not have a mandate to unilaterally negotiate the exit terms from the UK? And I believe that were Eck to say this and endorse the fact that independence does not mean a guaranteed SNP government much less a one party state the chances of winning the Yes vote would surely increase?

This is another bit I just do not get, why would anyone vote for people or a party that had spent the previous two years telling us that we could not run an independent country. The old too wee too stupid etc.

The other thing about this is, if Scotland votes for a party that opposed independence, could that party then claim to have a mandate to reunite the UK?

Glad I don't have any conflicts over this one. Three propositions for you:

1) use of the A-bomb on Japan saved more lives (including Japanese ones) than it cost

2) if you were alive in the 1980s, then you are only alive today because of the existence of nuclear weapons

3) in the future, increasing numbers of countries are inevitably going to acquire nuclear weapons, irrespective of what happens here. In some cases, this will be a neutral or even good thing; in other cases, action will have to be taken by outside powers to prevent such acquisition or destroy an existing capability.

Welcome to the 21st century folks. "Kumbaya my Lord" is no longer on the play-list.

If you haven't read Richard Frank's "Downfall" then do so. Otherwise you aren't really in a position to debate.

General Anami, Army Minister: "Even though we may have to eat grass, swallow dirt, and lie in the fields, we shall fight on to the bitter end, ever firm in our faith that we shall find life in death"

Admiral Onishi, Navy Minister: "Let us formulate a plan for certain victory, obtain the Emperor's sanction, and throw ourselves into bringing the plans to realization. If we are prepared to sacrifice 20,000,000 Japanese lives in a special effort, victory will be ours!"

Both quotes are from AFTER BOTH A-bombs, and the Russian invasion of Manchuria.

Yeah, for once I agree with Niko, feck off, Smee, if it came to the real thing you'd run a fecking mile. I know I would have done if I'd had the legs. I fecking hate heroes behind key-boards and I'm trying to be polite here as it's Conan's blog..

I got a number from elsewhere suggesting that the total number of deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was roughly equal to the number of Chinese civilian deaths being inflicted by the Japanese Army every three weeks.

"We’re at war with Japan. We were attacked by Japan. Do you want to kill Japanese, or would you rather have Americans killed? "

"There are no innocent civilians. It is their government and you are fighting a people, you are not trying to fight an armed force anymore. So it doesn't bother me so much to be killing the so-called innocent bystanders. "

"I have tried at all times to slaughter as few civilians as possible. "

The mafia uses nuclear weapons, so our scruples prevent us from joining them. However if they use nukes, but say that we can be 'made men' and we never actually have to have nukes ourselves, then membership of the mafia becomes morally acceptable. Weird stuff, but it's directly analagous to the case that Angus Robertson wishes to make, except that NATO is vastly more destructive than the mafia. You would have to switch off a terribly large number of moral circuits to agree with Angus on this, or know sweet fuck all about what's going on in the world.

Just as it is clear that membership of the mafia is not acceptable, I would have hoped that membership of NATO was a yet more outrageous proposal, and it has bugger all to do with nukes. NATO, like the mafia, is a criminal organisation. It kills, rapes, robs and desertifies in pursuit of purely fiscal objectives -NATO is just the mafia writ large. They don't care about the people they kill, and they don't even care about the people they send to kill them.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32025.htm

I can't believe that this debate is possible. It is just so depressing.

It is now the 12th and we are all- of course - bathing in the after glow of a successful , over priced London Olympics.I have smiled and cheered like many , I do enjoy seeing healthy youth display its talent and muscle no matter from whence they hail.I do not ,however subscribe to the drivel in the press that this is a show of union unity and how we should all gratefully tug forelocks at being " allowed " to participate.I had expected our Conan to have moved his blog on to a lampooning of both Davidson and the BBBBC,but then I am greedy for his inspired humour.'mon Conan!

The logical conclusion for all those who are using the Team GB issue for the referendum debate should maybe reflect on whether they want it to go to its natural conclusion - the scrapping of the home nations football and rugby teams.

The Scottish Tory party is not that stupid (I think) to advocate something like that------

(Saw a letter in The Times on Friday from a London reader demanding this should be brought around)

The SNP stance may not be of any import after independence. Labour seems to be for nuclear, for wmds and for war, if the London based party is anything to go by.

There may be changes here after 2014, who can tell, but if Labour is the first post independence government and retains its centre-right leanings taken from London, Scotland will remain in NATO and will have WMDs.

I too think that the minimum price was cack-handed, but when adults can't go out of the house at the weekend for fear of drunks, and when young teenagers are presenting with symptoms of liver damage, and you come across kids of around 12, drunk in the park, something has to be done.

Yes, there are many other things that we could do, but many of them would involve spending money we don't have, and are not allowed to raise. For example vastly increased policing of pubs and off-licences, and implementation of existing legislation, as proposed by the Tories might be a good start, but we can't afford the manpower.

Once again, when we can control all our legislation and taxation policies, perhaps we will find a better way of controlling what is undoubtedly a problem. Maybe making people a little less miserable would be a start.